Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Scott,

That is the best argument that I have ever seen to support the one list
format. Your last post provided the light bulb for me.


Jamie
Outrider 06


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

I know that a majority of NICT-bound players have consistently expressed a
preference for one list, and I expect this year's polling will be no different.
So *surprise* this isn't a rant at Jon or Scott, who have repeatedly said that
they have no strong view on this point and are happy to accede to the will of
the majority. No, I guess this is a rant at the rest of you.

What are you thinking??

Is there any compelling argument other than laziness or simple inertia for
having a single list format?

"Hey Tiger; new rule for this year's Master's: you only get one club in your
bag."

"Memo from Bud Selig: as of today, all ball players will use the same size
glove, regardless of position. And all ballparks will put the fences in the
same place, at the same distance, get rid of the DH and astroturf."

OK, the latter two would actually be good things, but....

There is abundant evidence in many competitive endeavors that encouraging
diversity makes for a more complex, more interesting game in which a wider
variety of approaches will prove viable.

The baseball example is instructive: St. Louis Cardinals 2nd baseman Tommy Herr
once led the team in RBIs (with 110) in a season in which (a) they won the
division, and (b) Herr had less than 10 home runs (9, to be exact). The fact
that Whitey Herzog's "rabbits" could have such success with a team built on all
speed and no power is a testament to the variety of playing conditions that
baseball not only encourages but celebrates.

It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more armies viable
choices than a one list tournament. On a related note, sticking to the current
terrain picks system makes more lists viable than pre-set terrain. The same
logic applies in both cases, and it's the logic that baseball has exploited so
wonderfully: give the manager more choices in how to construct his team and his
playing field, and a wider variety of winning approaches will be found as a
result.

Who wouldn't want that??

A less charitable person might suspect an ulterior motive here: those who choose
not to think carefully about terrain picks would prefer not to be at a
competitive disadvantage with those who do think terrain picks through; those
who choose not to invest a lot of time tinkering with army lists would prefer
not to be at a competitive disadvantage with those who invest time and effort
in such tinkering. I'm not saying that. I am saying that I don't understand the
sentiment to just show up and push lead as opposed to thinking through and
enjoying all the incredible variety our competitive environment has to offer.

See, I told you it was a rant. Well. I feel better now.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:

<snip>

> Is there any compelling argument other than laziness or simple inertia for
> having a single list format?
>
> It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more armies
viable
> choices than a one list tournament.

See, Mark: no, it's not. You may believe it. It may even be true. but I
don't think it's necessarily correct, and I certainly don't think it's
that clear.

I'm not actually going to get into the argument (at least, not yet!). But
I do wonder whether, given your analogies, you would favour a system where
one did not submit a list at all, but constructed a 1600-point list for
each round on the spot after learning about the next oppponent? Or is
there some line in between that you'd pick? (This is just curiosity, not
a real tournament suggestion.)

> On a related note, sticking to the current
> terrain picks system makes more lists viable than pre-set terrain.

I think that this is more likely true than the first assertion; but again
I do not think that it is clear.

Now, both multiple lists and player-chosen terrain, do, no argument,
provide more complexity and nuance and opportunity for deep thought.
Those are good things. But as to whether they widen the playing field of
top-level armies - well, I don't think you've proven that (granted, you
didn't try).

Got some more coffee yet? ;)

[scott holder]

> It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more
armies viable choices than a one list tournament.

In your opinion. I have data, anecdotal and dated I'll admit, but
data that suggested, at least 10-12 years ago at least, that single
list tourneys saw a broader array of armies played in tourneys. We
switched to single list tourneys for a while during the Northern VA
regional tourneys, plenty of good players there who are a decent
snapshot of how the larger player base usually acts (or acted,
remember, my data is old). Guess what? We immediately, and
consistently saw a larger variety of armies in play precisely
because you couldn't tailor a list for the likely threats. When we
moved back to two-list tourneys, bingo, usual armies became the norm
and those you saw (Lysimachid for example) in the single list
tourneys were dropped.

That experience was a real eye-opener for me and convinced me that
there was a *lot* to be said for single list tourneys in terms of
greater army variety.

Flash forward to now and a set of army lists designed for Warrior.
Would my old data hold true? Hard to say given the circumstances
and fundamentals have changed significantly. But before any
casually dismisses one-list tourneys as narrowing down army
viability, I at least have perhaps 4-6 tourneys over a 12-18 month
time frame that told me otherwise.

scott

[Mike Turner]

Mark,
I'll comment on the additional hassle of moving two lists worth of
25mm figures through an airport, but I know you probably have to fly
also, so it would fall on deaf ears. But, it is a consideration, and
I've put too much time and effort into my painting to not carry it
myself. 1600 pts, one tool box, additional pts to cover other
potential threats,...probably one tool box (+).

Mike


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> I know that a majority of NICT-bound players have consistently
expressed a
> preference for one list, and I expect this year's polling will be
no different.
> So *surprise* this isn't a rant at Jon or Scott, who have
repeatedly said that
> they have no strong view on this point and are happy to accede to
the will of
> the majority. No, I guess this is a rant at the rest of you.
>
> What are you thinking??
>
> Is there any compelling argument other than laziness or simple
inertia for
> having a single list format?
>
> "Hey Tiger; new rule for this year's Master's: you only get one
club in your
> bag."
>
> "Memo from Bud Selig: as of today, all ball players will use the
same size
> glove, regardless of position. And all ballparks will put the
fences in the
> same place, at the same distance, get rid of the DH and astroturf."
>
> OK, the latter two would actually be good things, but....
>
> There is abundant evidence in many competitive endeavors that
encouraging
> diversity makes for a more complex, more interesting game in which
a wider
> variety of approaches will prove viable.
>
> The baseball example is instructive: St. Louis Cardinals 2nd
baseman Tommy Herr
> once led the team in RBIs (with 110) in a season in which (a) they
won the
> division, and (b) Herr had less than 10 home runs (9, to be exact).
The fact
> that Whitey Herzog's "rabbits" could have such success with a team
built on all
> speed and no power is a testament to the variety of playing
conditions that
> baseball not only encourages but celebrates.
>
> It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more
armies viable
> choices than a one list tournament. On a related note, sticking to
the current
> terrain picks system makes more lists viable than pre-set terrain.
The same
> logic applies in both cases, and it's the logic that baseball has
exploited so
> wonderfully: give the manager more choices in how to construct his
team and his
> playing field, and a wider variety of winning approaches will be
found as a
> result.
>
> Who wouldn't want that??
>
> A less charitable person might suspect an ulterior motive here:
those who choose
> not to think carefully about terrain picks would prefer not to be
at a
> competitive disadvantage with those who do think terrain picks
through; those
> who choose not to invest a lot of time tinkering with army lists
would prefer
> not to be at a competitive disadvantage with those who invest time
and effort
> in such tinkering. I'm not saying that. I am saying that I don't
understand the
> sentiment to just show up and push lead as opposed to thinking
through and
> enjoying all the incredible variety our competitive environment has
to offer.
>
> See, I told you it was a rant. Well. I feel better now.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

Mark,

This has been discussed over and over. The answer is quite simple. There are
many armies that do not have the troop variations available that other armies
do. For example Midianites or Galatians. Some armies do have several choices
of the same thing, but no ability to radically change their capabilities. These
armies can't come up with two lists as they buy everything they can just for the
1600 points or don't have troops of significantly different capabilities. One
list encourages players to use these kinds of armies. Two, why should some
players that choose lists that have fifty lines of options get to field two
entirely different armies. Many armies do not have the ability to be completely
different. One list is anti-elephant and pike. Another list is anti-knights.
The lazy people are those that need two lists because they can't figure out how
to design a combined arms list that is flexible and capable of meeting any army.
Myself, I play both kinds of armies. It takes me a lot of time and thought with
those armies capable of having diverse capabilities to design a flexible combine
arms force. By the same token, if I am playing something like Midianites why
should people have the option of having a list designed just take out my type of
army. This is especially annoying with the knight type armies that have one
list with 12 knight units and three infantry units in one list and another list
that has two knights and 15 pike/spear units. From my reading of history, most
armies did not have the luxury of picking and choosing what they took to the
battle. I don't care if the majority of players would like to lists, that makes
it easy on me. But I expect that much of the variation will disappear from the
competitions.

Mike Kelly

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:55:50 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] 1 list or 2: beating that dead horse


I know that a majority of NICT-bound players have consistently expressed a
preference for one list, and I expect this year's polling will be no different.
So *surprise* this isn't a rant at Jon or Scott, who have repeatedly said that
they have no strong view on this point and are happy to accede to the will of
the majority. No, I guess this is a rant at the rest of you.

What are you thinking??

Is there any compelling argument other than laziness or simple inertia for
having a single list format?

"Hey Tiger; new rule for this year's Master's: you only get one club in your
bag."

"Memo from Bud Selig: as of today, all ball players will use the same size
glove, regardless of position. And all ballparks will put the fences in the
same place, at the same distance, get rid of the DH and astroturf."

OK, the latter two would actually be good things, but....

There is abundant evidence in many competitive endeavors that encouraging
diversity makes for a more complex, more interesting game in which a wider
variety of approaches will prove viable.

The baseball example is instructive: St. Louis Cardinals 2nd baseman Tommy Herr
once led the team in RBIs (with 110) in a season in which (a) they won the
division, and (b) Herr had less than 10 home runs (9, to be exact). The fact
that Whitey Herzog's "rabbits" could have such success with a team built on all
speed and no power is a testament to the variety of playing conditions that
baseball not only encourages but celebrates.

It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more armies viable
choices than a one list tournament. On a related note, sticking to the current
terrain picks system makes more lists viable than pre-set terrain. The same
logic applies in both cases, and it's the logic that baseball has exploited so
wonderfully: give the manager more choices in how to construct his team and his
playing field, and a wider variety of winning approaches will be found as a
result.

Who wouldn't want that??

A less charitable person might suspect an ulterior motive here: those who choose
not to think carefully about terrain picks would prefer not to be at a
competitive disadvantage with those who do think terrain picks through; those
who choose not to invest a lot of time tinkering with army lists would prefer
not to be at a competitive disadvantage with those who invest time and effort
in such tinkering. I'm not saying that. I am saying that I don't understand the
sentiment to just show up and push lead as opposed to thinking through and
enjoying all the incredible variety our competitive environment has to offer.

See, I told you it was a rant. Well. I feel better now.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

As you all know, I have no dog in this fight - I will happily play in a
tournament that has either one list or two or has one with some amount of flex
points or whatever.

What I will say is that it is not at all a no-brainer. It has not in any way
that I am aware been 'proved' that two lists makes more armies viable or vice
versa, for that matter. Claims have been made by both 'sides', sometimes
vehemently, but no facts have been presented. Even Scott's 'data' are based
upon another game and non-FHE lists....

I think it might be an interesting and useful twist to see the list of armies
folks think are made more (or less) viable by both types of events. If someone
proved their case one way or the other with some facts, now that would be
something...

my $0.02
Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 12 May 2005 18:30:04 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: 1 list or 2: beating that dead horse


> It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more
armies viable choices than a one list tournament.

In your opinion. I have data, anecdotal and dated I'll admit, but
data that suggested, at least 10-12 years ago at least, that single
list tourneys saw a broader array of armies played in tourneys. We
switched to single list tourneys for a while during the Northern VA
regional tourneys, plenty of good players there who are a decent
snapshot of how the larger player base usually acts (or acted,
remember, my data is old). Guess what? We immediately, and
consistently saw a larger variety of armies in play precisely
because you couldn't tailor a list for the likely threats. When we
moved back to two-list tourneys, bingo, usual armies became the norm
and those you saw (Lysimachid for example) in the single list
tourneys were dropped.

That experience was a real eye-opener for me and convinced me that
there was a *lot* to be said for single list tourneys in terms of
greater army variety.

Flash forward to now and a set of army lists designed for Warrior.
Would my old data hold true? Hard to say given the circumstances
and fundamentals have changed significantly. But before any
casually dismisses one-list tourneys as narrowing down army
viability, I at least have perhaps 4-6 tourneys over a 12-18 month
time frame that told me otherwise.

scott





Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Heck Jamie, You always run 10,000 MC L, B just like I usually show up with the
same number of elephants in my Burmese. We run single list armies and like it
b/c it limits our opponents and gives our lists a decent chance I would say to
compete. I like the one list tournaments as they make me think more about the
use of terrain verses my varied opponents and usually forces me to build more
balanced lists. Just my opinion.

kelly wilkinson

JamieWGIII@... wrote:
Scott,

That is the best argument that I have ever seen to support the one list
format. Your last post provided the light bulb for me.


Jamie
Outrider 06


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I say this with the exception of my Burmese! :)

kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:Heck Jamie, You always run 10,000
MC L, B just like I usually show up with the same number of elephants in my
Burmese. We run single list armies and like it b/c it limits our opponents and
gives our lists a decent chance I would say to compete. I like the one list
tournaments as they make me think more about the use of terrain verses my
varied opponents and usually forces me to build more balanced lists. Just my
opinion.

kelly wilkinson

JamieWGIII@... wrote:
Scott,

That is the best argument that I have ever seen to support the one list
format. Your last post provided the light bulb for me.


Jamie
Outrider 06


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

> What I will say is that it is not at all a no-brainer. It has not
in any way that I am aware been 'proved' that two lists makes more
armies viable or vice versa, for that matter. Claims have been made
by both 'sides', sometimes vehemently, but no facts have been
presented. Even Scott's 'data' are based upon another game and non-
FHE lists....

I hoped that I made that clear. Let me also make it clear that I have
no axe to grind here.

scott

[joncleaves]

For example, I agree with Mike that Midianites and Galatians are excellent
examples of armies that fucntion better in one-list events.
By the same token, a list such as Han Chinese would fare better in a two-list
tourney.

The issue remains that various camps claim to have *more* such lists on one side
or the other of the line - and that is the part that has not been made clear, as
far as I know. Certainly there are armies we can agree on do better in one or
the other - but what is being said is that one side or the other clearly makes
*more* lists viable than the other - and that is what I think has not been
shown. I still recommend that those who feel that way offer up a list of what
becomes more viable in one vice the other so we can be talking about something
concrete in this thread (or the latest iteration of an old thread....lol) and
not just speculation and so-called no-brainers.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 12 May 2005 19:24:21 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: 1 list or 2: beating that dead horse


> What I will say is that it is not at all a no-brainer. It has not
in any way that I am aware been 'proved' that two lists makes more
armies viable or vice versa, for that matter. Claims have been made
by both 'sides', sometimes vehemently, but no facts have been
presented. Even Scott's 'data' are based upon another game and non-
FHE lists....

I hoped that I made that clear. Let me also make it clear that I have
no axe to grind here.

scott





Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I think it would be quite interesting if say a Seleucid player were to meet a
Polybian Roman player in any given round and that they should have to take a
list in the period that these two could have fought. Thus the Seleucid player
would likely not be able to use his early list option and would be forced to use
a later period in which they came into contact making the contest a bit closer
to a historical match.

k

JonCleaves@... wrote:
For example, I agree with Mike that Midianites and Galatians are excellent
examples of armies that fucntion better in one-list events.
By the same token, a list such as Han Chinese would fare better in a two-list
tourney.

The issue remains that various camps claim to have *more* such lists on one side
or the other of the line - and that is the part that has not been made clear, as
far as I know. Certainly there are armies we can agree on do better in one or
the other - but what is being said is that one side or the other clearly makes
*more* lists viable than the other - and that is what I think has not been
shown. I still recommend that those who feel that way offer up a list of what
becomes more viable in one vice the other so we can be talking about something
concrete in this thread (or the latest iteration of an old thread....lol) and
not just speculation and so-called no-brainers.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 12 May 2005 19:24:21 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: 1 list or 2: beating that dead horse


> What I will say is that it is not at all a no-brainer. It has not
in any way that I am aware been 'proved' that two lists makes more
armies viable or vice versa, for that matter. Claims have been made
by both 'sides', sometimes vehemently, but no facts have been
presented. Even Scott's 'data' are based upon another game and non-
FHE lists....

I hoped that I made that clear. Let me also make it clear that I have
no axe to grind here.

scott





Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bill Chriss]

>
>
> Mark Stone wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is there any compelling argument other than laziness or simple inertia
> for
> > having a single list format?
> >
> > It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more
> armies viable
> > choices than a one list tournament.
>
> See, Mark: no, it's not. You may believe it. It may even be true. but
> I
> don't think it's necessarily correct, and I certainly don't think it's
> that clear.
>
> I'm not actually going to get into the argument (at least, not yet!).
> But
> I do wonder whether, given your analogies, you would favour a system
> where
> one did not submit a list at all, but constructed a 1600-point list for
> each round on the spot after learning about the next oppponent? Or is
> there some line in between that you'd pick? (This is just curiosity, not
> a real tournament suggestion.)


On the basis of logic, I must weigh in with Ewan on this one. However, I
suspect I would prefer a two-list format and variable terrain, if my
opinion mattered; not because of the reasons you suggest, Mark, but
because I think (and could be wrong) that my favorite armies would likely
not get pulverized as badly under such conditions.

I think it possible (though I am unconvinced)that a one list format would
actually make MORE armies playable by virtue of creating greater
uncertainty and trepidation among the players about picking ANY army. With
one list you can't enemy-proof your army against everyone or even most
opponents, and hence must return to a purer form of rock/paper/scissors
analysis. Or as darrell royal said: sometimes you just suck it up and pick
a number.

I did really enjoy your baseball analogy, Mark, and your posts are always
well written and thought-provoking. I myself always enjoyed Phil Niekro
mystify great hitters with his 56 mph knuckleball.


-Greek

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
> Mark Stone wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Is there any compelling argument other than laziness or simple inertia for
> > having a single list format?
> >
> > It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more armies
> viable
> > choices than a one list tournament.
>
> See, Mark: no, it's not. You may believe it. It may even be true. but I
> don't think it's necessarily correct, and I certainly don't think it's
> that clear.

I will attempt to make it clear to the unenlightened (*grin*). See below.

>
> I'm not actually going to get into the argument (at least, not yet!). But
> I do wonder whether, given your analogies, you would favour a system where
> one did not submit a list at all, but constructed a 1600-point list for
> each round on the spot after learning about the next oppponent? Or is
> there some line in between that you'd pick? (This is just curiosity, not
> a real tournament suggestion.)

So, this is a very interesting point, and one that I hadn't consciously thought
about. Having spent some time reflecting on it, I guess there are several ways
of responding:

I think we've all speculated at one point or another about what it would be like
to run in an "army-list free tournament": one where you build whatever list or
lists you want, constrained only by the points system in Warrior. I can even
imagine taking that to the extreme that you describe, where you write out a
different list for each opponent you face. Given that we've already conceded to
ahistorical matchups in an open tourney format, why not go all the way?

Several reasons:
(1) Time. Any approach along these lines would take a great deal more time to
play out, and many of us already feel that four hours is barely enough. There's
also the time Scott or whoever would have to spend checking and validating
lists. All of this just isn't practical.

(2) History. Even in open tourney format, history does matter. There's a reason
why I play Warrior, and not Warhammer 40K or some other miniatures system
utterly detached from reality. I like the fact that my army bears some
resemblance to an actual army, and like the occaisional matchup that resembles
some actual historical engagement. Note that the latter is not restricted to
actual historical or even in-time-period matchups. Last night I played a
Chinese army against Lenney Hermann's Scythians, and given that the armies were
centuries apart and from separate regions of Asia it was hardly a historical
matchup. But the composition of Lenney's army certainly resembled later horse
archer armies that the Chinese actually did fight, and it had the feel of a
historical matchup.

(3) Artistic expression. I'm not sure what else to call it. By way of analogy, I
guess I'd say this: when the Moog synthesizer gained popularity in the 60s (am I
dating myself too much here?) we could finally put an instrument in a musician's
hand that could fairly closely mimic the sound of any actual musical instrument,
and create a wide range of sounds limited only by the musician's imagination.
For the first time, musicians were unconstrained by the limitations of the
instrument. The result? Garbage. Utter crap. There's not a single piece of
original synthesizer music that stands out as one of the great contributions to
world music. And I'm willing ot set the bar for "great contributions" pretty low
here, say, on the level of the Beatles' "I Wanna Hold Your Hand".

Why is that? I'd argue it's because great artististry is born of the struggle to
express against real constraints. It's no coincidence, I'll claim, that the
violin is both a very difficult instrument to master, and responsible for some
of the world's most beautiful music.

So: in Warrior there are several reasons not to allow completely unconstrained
army list creation. Some are practical, but some, and the most important
reasons I grant you, are more aesthetic.

There are two main reasons for allowing two lists rather than one.

First, it gives us a more intricate and more nuanced game. This is independent
of whether a wider variety of armies actually get played. Ewan concedes as much
below, and I won't debate it further. I will concede that a different kind of
thought and creativity is required to play a tightly constrained game well, but
I've been there, done that, and that's why I don't play chess anymore.

Second, it gives us more varied and a wider variety of armies, which is an
excellent way to showcase our hobby to others and attract interest. Note that
"more varied armies" is not the same as "wider vareity of armies": the former
simply means that a wider variety of figures, units, etc. gets used; the latter
means this variety is spread across a a wider number of army lists.

I guess it is the former that I consider a no-brainer: if a tournament allows 2N
army lists instead of N army lists, people are going to use a wider variety of
figures, units, etc. To make it concrete: I'll play my Later Paleologan
Byzantines in either a one list or two list format, but only in a two list
format will the "Moogs" ever make an appearance.

Now: will 2N lists get spread across a wider range of armies? That is a harder
question....

>
> Now, both multiple lists and player-chosen terrain, do, no argument,
> provide more complexity and nuance and opportunity for deep thought.
> Those are good things. But as to whether they widen the playing field of
> top-level armies - well, I don't think you've proven that (granted, you
> didn't try).
>

So, let me try.

The question is really this: are there a significant number of good one list
armies that suffer in a two list format? It can't be that the one list armies
themselves get worse; it can only be that their opponents get better, and
enough better to take a one list army out of contention.

Frankly, I can't see how this could happen. If my army only has one viable way
of being put together, even in a one list tourney format I still have to think
of playing in a major tourney like the NICT in terms of how I would match up
against any of a couple dozen possible army configurations (one list of any of
the two dozen or so armies I might end up fighting). Changing that to four
dozen possible army configurations doesn't really change the scope of the
problem any.

And think of the specifics. Armies like Midianites and Burmese have been
suggested as examples of fairly monolithic, one list armies. But no one, in a
two list format, is going to take a specifically anti-Midianite or anti-Burmese
army. When I think "defensively" like that, I think in more general, and more
common terms: anti-pike, anti-cavalry, anti-elephant (and no, conventional
anti-elephant tactics do not apply in any straightforward manner against the
Burmese). A single, monolithic list is just enough of an outlier that I will
simply have to deal with it when I meet it. This applies equally well to very
monolithic versions of armies I have prepared for. My "anti-knight" tactics go
out the window when I play against Sean Scott's Italian Condotta, because it
plays it so one-dimensionally and with such ferocious, single-minded purpose.

My point is there are certain armies -- and they tend to be one-list armies --
that force your opponent to respond to you, rather than embody a response you
might make to a potential opponent. I can't see that such armies are at all
disadvantaged in a two-list format.

Now look at the flip side. Are there armies that are disadvantaged by being in a
one list format? Disadvantaged to the point of losing viability? I'd argue that
it's easy, indeed trivial, to come up with _many_ such armies. A perfect
example would be Scots Common Army. Against knights, or other cavalry-laden
armies, there's little point to taking an abundance of loose order foot as it's
simply too vulnerable. The spearmen, however, are quite durable against cavalry.
Sadly, these same spearmen have vulnerabilities against elephants and certain
kinds of rather common foot troops. These are exactly the opposing troop types
where you want an abundance of high morale loose order foot. It's an army that
cries out for a two list format, and leaves you with perilous choices in a one
list format.

So that, I guess, is my argument. I think the burden of proof is to explain why
2N armies would get spread across fewer lists than N armies. Given that many
one list armies are just as viable in a two list format, and given that many
armies are more viable in a two list format, I can't see any other conclusion
than that the two list format encourages a wider variety of armies.


-Mark Stone

[Chris Bump]

I like your rant, but in my opinion your analogies actually support
the alternative position to yours. Glove size and number of clubs is
not a good analogy to a single army list. That would be more like
mandating that every unit in an army is armed with the same weapon.
The ST.Louis cardinals were a single team and each player would be
more like an individual unit in our armies. So Whitey opted for a
speed team, perhaps like a steepes army might. He did not have the
option to add power players when he faced a team that could better
deal with his speed. He was forced to change his tactics, but with
the same team/army that he faced every other opponent with.

Tiger does not have the option to change his clubs in a tournament.
He enters the tournament with a set of clubs, ie units. He would be
the general who decides the best use of each club... tactics. I live
next door to Chad Campbell (top 10 money winner this year) and if his
club collection is any indication of Tiger's club choices then there
would be plenty of possibilities to play with more than the
regulation number allowed in each tournament, akin to changing
lists.

As for baseball field size, I disagree with you that each field
should be the same size, but that same size very much runs parallel
to our constant battlefield size. The random placement of terrain
might simulate the difference between the various parks, green
monster, or the homerun friendly Astros park ( I hate the corporate
names of parks these days).
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> I know that a majority of NICT-bound players have consistently
expressed a
> preference for one list, and I expect this year's polling will be
no different.
> So *surprise* this isn't a rant at Jon or Scott, who have
repeatedly said that
> they have no strong view on this point and are happy to accede to
the will of
> the majority. No, I guess this is a rant at the rest of you.
>
> What are you thinking??
>
> Is there any compelling argument other than laziness or simple
inertia for
> having a single list format?
>
> "Hey Tiger; new rule for this year's Master's: you only get one
club in your
> bag."
>
> "Memo from Bud Selig: as of today, all ball players will use the
same size
> glove, regardless of position. And all ballparks will put the
fences in the
> same place, at the same distance, get rid of the DH and astroturf."
>
> OK, the latter two would actually be good things, but....
>
> There is abundant evidence in many competitive endeavors that
encouraging
> diversity makes for a more complex, more interesting game in which
a wider
> variety of approaches will prove viable.
>
> The baseball example is instructive: St. Louis Cardinals 2nd
baseman Tommy Herr
> once led the team in RBIs (with 110) in a season in which (a) they
won the
> division, and (b) Herr had less than 10 home runs (9, to be exact).
The fact
> that Whitey Herzog's "rabbits" could have such success with a team
built on all
> speed and no power is a testament to the variety of playing
conditions that
> baseball not only encourages but celebrates.
>
> It's a no-brainer that in Warrior a two list tournament makes more
armies viable
> choices than a one list tournament. On a related note, sticking to
the current
> terrain picks system makes more lists viable than pre-set terrain.
The same
> logic applies in both cases, and it's the logic that baseball has
exploited so
> wonderfully: give the manager more choices in how to construct his
team and his
> playing field, and a wider variety of winning approaches will be
found as a
> result.
>
> Who wouldn't want that??
>
> A less charitable person might suspect an ulterior motive here:
those who choose
> not to think carefully about terrain picks would prefer not to be
at a
> competitive disadvantage with those who do think terrain picks
through; those
> who choose not to invest a lot of time tinkering with army lists
would prefer
> not to be at a competitive disadvantage with those who invest time
and effort
> in such tinkering. I'm not saying that. I am saying that I don't
understand the
> sentiment to just show up and push lead as opposed to thinking
through and
> enjoying all the incredible variety our competitive environment has
to offer.
>
> See, I told you it was a rant. Well. I feel better now.
>
>
> -Mark Stone